Fuel 239 (2019) 70–75

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel

Full Length Article

Removal of gaseous hydrogen sulfide using Fenton reagent in a spraying T

reactor
⁎
Yan Wang, Zhuliang Wang, Jianfeng Pan, Yangxian Liu
School of Energy and Power Engineering, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, Jiangsu 212013, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Removal of gaseous hydrogen sulfide using Fenton solution in a spraying tower was studied systematically. The
Gaseous hydrogen sulfide removal effects of several key running parameters such as H2O2 concentration, Fe2+ concentration, reaction temperature,
Fenton reagent solution pH value, hydrogen sulfide concentration and liquid-gas ratio on hydrogen sulfide removal were in-
Hydroxyl radical (%OH) vestigated. Products, free radicals and mechanism of hydrogen sulfide removal were also studied. The results
Spraying reactor
show that an increase in Fe2+ concentration, liquid-gas ratio or solution pH value can increase removal effi-
ciency of hydrogen sulfide. Increasing hydrogen sulfide concentration can reduce removal efficiency of hydrogen
sulfide. H2O2 concentration and reaction temperature have double influence on hydrogen sulfide removal re-
moval efficiency. Hydrogen sulfide removal by oxidation of hydroxyl radical (%OH) is the main removal path-
ways. Hydrogen sulfide removal by oxidation of H2O2 and hydrolysis reaction are the secondary removal
pathways. The main oxidation products of hydrogen sulfide removal are sulphuric acid and elemental sulfur in
solutions.

1. Introduction
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is one of the most common impurities in
many industrial production processes such as coal/biomass gasification,
oil-gas production, wastewater treatment, etc [1]. The removal of H2S
from these gas streams to less than ppm levels is very necessary because
it is a highly toxic, odorous and corrosive gas. It is also proved to be a
major source of acid rain when it is oxidized to SO2 [2,3]. Besides, H2S
can seriously danger human health, poison industrial catalysts and
cause corrosion of oil-gas pipe line and devices [1,3]. Over the past few
decades, environmental scholars have developed a number of H2S re-
moval technologies [1–16]. According to the principle of removal
process, these technologies can be divided into two categories of dry
and wet methods [1,15,16]. Representative dry method mainly includes
plasma removal, ozonation, photocatalytic oxidation, photo-decom-
position, adsorption removal, etc [1–11]. Representative wet method
mainly includes biological method, complex absorption, alkali absorp-
tion, catalytic oxidation, ionic liquid absorption, chemical oxidation,
etc [12–17]. These technologies show good prospects in some respects,
but most of them still have a variety of defects such as high investment
and operating costs, equipment corrosion, unstable systems and de-
vices, low security, secondary pollution problems, etc [12,17]. Thus, it
is an important task for scientists and technicians in this field to actively
develop more cost-effective H2S removal technologies.
Fenton reagent can generate hydroxyl free radicals (%OH) with very
strong oxidizing to remove organic pollutants in water, and has re-
ceived widespread attention due to several advantages in strong oxi-
dizing ability, simple process and no secondary pollution [18]. In the
area of gas purification, Guo et al. [19] studied the removal of NO from
flue gas using Fenton reagent in a magnetic stirrer bubbling reactor.
Zhao et al. [20] studied the simultaneous removal of SO2 and NO from
flue gas using Fenton reagent in a bubbling reactor. Lu et al. [21]
preliminarily used Fenton reagent to remove Hg0 from flue gas in a
bubble reactor. Liu et al. [22] further studied the removal of Hg0 from
flue gas in a spraying reactor. In the field of hydrogen sulfide removal,
Lin et al. [23] studied the removal of H2S from coal mine waste water
using Fenton reagent oxidation. However, the related reports on the
removal of H2S from gas phase using Fenton reagent oxidation are rare.
The purpose of this article is to explore removal of H2S from gas phase
using Fenton reagent.
The main research contents of this article include the following four
parts: (1) to examine the feasibility of this removal process (removal of
H2S from gas phase using Fenton reagent oxidation in a spraying
tower); (2) to investigate the effects of several running parameters (e.g.,
H2O2 concentration, Fe2+ concentration, reaction temperature, solu-
tion pH value, hydrogen sulfide concentration and liquid-gas ratio) and
the active species/products of H2S removal process; (3) to study the
mechanism of H2S removal. The results will provide essential

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: liuyx1984@126.com (Y. Liu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.10.143
Received 24 July 2018; Received in revised form 20 September 2018; Accepted 30 October 2018
Available online 08 November 2018
0016-2361/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Wang et al. Fuel 239 (2019) 70–75

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of experi-

mental system. (1–2) H2S and N2
Cylinders; (3–4) Flowmeters; (5) Gas
Mixing Box; (6) Valves; (7)
Thermometer; (8) Reactor Lid; (9)
Nozzle; (10) Spraying Reactorr; (11)
Circulating Pump; (12) Gas Distributor;
(13) Thermostatic Waterbath; (14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Analyzer; (15) Waste
Gas Absorption Bottle.

(1-2) H2S and N2 Cylinders; (3-4) Flowmeters; (5) Gas Mixing Box; (6) Valves; (7) Thermometer; (8) Reactor Lid;
(9) Nozzle; (10) Spraying Reactorr; (11) Circulating Pump; (12) Gas Distributor; (13) Thermostatic Waterbath;
(14) Hydrogen Sulfide Analyzer; (15) Waste Gas Absorption Bottle

theoretical basis for the follow-up developments of this technology.
2. Experimental section
2.1. Experimental installation
The experimental system mainly includes four parts as follows: (A)
A flue gas blending system with two gas cylinders of H2S and N2 (1–2),
two flowmeters (3–4), a gas mixing box (5) and two valves (6); (B) A
temperature control system consisting of a thermostatic waterbath (13)
and a thermometer (7); (C) A spraying reactor (9.5 cm internal dia-
meter; 55 cm length; Glass; Spraying height is about 25 cm) with a re-
actor lid (8), a nozzle (9), a gas distributor (12), a spraying reactor (10)
and a circulating pump (11); (D) An analytical and after-treatment
system, including a hydrogen sulfide analyzer (14) and a waste gas
absorption bottle (15), which is described in Fig. 1.
Elemental sulfur was measured using high efficiency liquid chromato-
graphy, and the measurement method can reference the literature [24].
2.4. Hydrogen sulfide removal efficiency
The concentrations of hydrogen sulfide measured by the bypass are
used as the inlet concentration of hydrogen sulfide. The concentrations
measured by the spraying tower outlet are used as the outlet con-
centrations of hydrogen sulfide. Removal efficiencies of hydrogen sul-
fide are calculated by the following Eq. (1):
Cin − Cout
Removal efficiency = × 100%
Cin (1)
where Cin is inlet concentration of hydrogen sulfide in mixture gas,
ppm; Cout is outlet concentration of hydrogen sulfide in mixture gas,
ppm.

2.2. Experimental methods 3. Results and discussions

0.3 L/min of containing-H2S and N2 mixture gas was produced using 3.1. Effects of H2O2 concentration on H2S removal efficiency
the cylinders gases (Suzhou Jinhong Gas Co., Ltd., China, High purity
gas) and the flowmeters. The inlet concentrations of H2S in mixture gas Fig. 2 shows the effects of H2O2 concentration on H2S removal ef-
were measured using the hydrogen sulfide analyzer (PULI Measurement ficiency. The results indicate that with the increase from 0 to 0.4 mol/L
Technology Co., Ltd., high precision custom edition; Detection limit is of H2O2 concentration, H2S removal efficiency sharply increases from 0
0.1 ppm and repeatability error is less than 2%). 0.4 L of Fenton reagent to 83.5%. The results [19–22] indicate that H2O2 can react with Fe2+ to
(Fe2+/H2O2) was produced using analytical reagents (H2O2/ produce %OH free radicals by the reactions (2)–(4).
FeCl2·4H2O; Sinopharm Reagent Co., Ltd.; Analytical reagent) and
deionized water. Fenton reagent was added to the spraying reactor by
opening the reactor lid after the pH value of solution was adjusted using
an acidometer. The temperature of solution was adjusted to the re-
quired values by the thermostatic water bath and the thermometer. The
containing-H2S and N2 mixture gas began to enter the spraying reactor
to achieve a gas-liquid reaction by switching valves after the circulating
pump was started and the solution began to spray. The outlet con-
centrations of H2S were measured by hydrogen sulfide analyzer. Every
test running time was kept for 20 min (H2S removal efficiency is rela-
tively stable in the first 20 min), and the average concentration within
20 min was used as outlet concentrations of H2S. The containing-H2S
exhaust gas from reactor was further purified using waste gas absorp-
tion bottle.

2.3. Analytical methods

The %OH free radicals were detected using electron spin resonance
spectrometer (Bruker ESP-300) combining with 5,5-dimethyl-1- pyrro- Fig. 2. Effects of H2O2 concentration on H2S removal efficiency. Conditions:
lidine N-oxide (DMPO) (> 99%, Sigma) as a spin trap agent. SO32− and Fe2+ concentration, 0.1 mol/L; H2S concentration, 1000 ppm; Reaction tem-
SO42− were measured by ion chromatography (IC) (Metrohm-861). perature, 40 °C; Solution pH value, 3.52; Liquid-gas ratio, 3.

71
Y. Wang et al.
Fe2 + + H2 O2 → Fe3 + + ·OH + OH−
Fe3 + + H2 O2 → [Fe(HO2 )]2 + + H+
[Fe(HO2 )]2 + → Fe2 + + HO2·
The redox potential of %OH reaches 2.80 V, and has a strong oxi-
dizability. Related results [23,25–29] indicate that %OH can oxidize H2S
according to the following reactions (5)–(12).
H2 O
H2 S → HS - + H+
H2 S+ ·OH → HS·+H2 O
HS− + ·OH → HSOH·−
HS·+H2 O2 → H2 SO2 ·+H·
H2 SO2 ·+H2 O2 → H2 SO4 + H2
HSOH·− + H2 O2 → H2 SO3 + H2
H2 SO3 + H2 O2 → H2 SO4 + H2 O
H2 SO3 + ·OH → H2 SO4 + ·H
Besides, increasing H2O2 concentration also can effectively promote
H2S removal by direct oxidation of H2O2 according to the following
reaction (13) [23].
H2 S+ H2 O2 → 2H2 O+S↓
Hence, based on the above reactions (2)–(13), increasing H2O2
concentration is able to strengthen removal of H2S.
However, when H2O2 concentration further increases from 0.4 mol/
L to 1.0 mol/L, H2S removal efficiency decreases from 83.5% to 62.9%.
Related results [30,31] showed that in the Fenton reaction, adding
excess H2O2 would result in the self-consumption of %OH by the reac-
tion (14). The reaction (14) has a high reaction rate, and thus will in-
hibit the removal of H2S.
·OH + H2 O2 → H2 O+ HO2 k= 2. 7 × 107M−1s−1
+
Besides, H2O2 is an acid oxidizer, and thus can produce H
following hydrolysis reaction (15) [30,31]:
H2 O2 → HO−2 + H+
The produced H+ in the Eq. (15) will inhibit the hydrolysis of H2S in
the Eq. (5), which is detrimental to removal of H2S. In this article,
0.4 mol/L is chosen as the optimized H2O2 concentration value.
3.2. Effects of Fe2+ concentration on H2S removal efficiency
Fig. 3 shows the effects of Fe2+ concentration on H2S removal ef-
ficiency. The results show that when Fe2+ concentration increases from
0 to 0.16 mol/L, H2S removal efficiency greatly increases from 10.8% to
91.9%. Related results [19–21] show that H2O2 can react with Fe2+ to
produce %OH in solution by the above reactions (2)–(4). As a catalyst,
the increase of Fe2+ concentration can increase the yield of %OH in
solution, thereby enhancing H2S removal. However, when Fe2+ con-
centration exceeds 0.1 mol/L, the growth of Hg0 removal efficiency
becomes relatively gentle. Related results [21] indicate that adding
excess Fe2+ may consume %OH in solution according to the following
side reaction (16) with a very high reaction rate.
Fe2+ + ·OH → Fe3+ + OH− k= 3. 0 × 108M−1s−1
2+
Therefore, adding excess Fe can not further provide a big increase
in H2S removal efficiency.
3.3. Effects of reaction temperature on H2S removal efficiency
Fig. 4 shows the effects of reaction temperature on H2S removal
efficiency. The results show that when reaction temperature increases
Fuel 239 (2019) 70–75
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
Fig. 3. Effects of Fe2+ concentration on H2S removal efficiency. Conditions:
(11) H2O2 concentration, 0.4 mol/L; H2S concentration, 1000 ppm; Reaction tem-
perature, 40 °C; Solution pH value, 3.52; Liquid-gas ratio, 3.
(12)
(13)
(14)
by the
Fig. 4. Effects of temperature on H2S removal efficiency. Conditions: H2O2
(15) concentration, 0.4 mol/L; Fe2+ concentration, 0.1 mol/L; H2S concentration,
1000 ppm; Solution pH value, 3.52; Liquid-gas ratio, 3.
from 20 °C to 70 °C, H2S removal efficiency firstly increases from 64.2%
to 83.5%, and then decreases from 83.5% to 72.4%. 40 °C is found to be
an optimized temperature. According to the Arrhenius equation, the
above reactions (2)–(13) will be accelerated by increasing temperature
[26,31], thereby being able to promote H2S removal. However, related
results [26,31] also indicate that increasing temperature will result in
the reduction of gas solubility in solution, which is adverse to removal
of H2S. Hence, temperature shows different effects on H2S removal in
different temperature ranges.
3.4. Effects of hydrogen sulfide concentration on H2S removal efficiency
Fig. 5 shows the effects of hydrogen sulfide concentration on H2S
removal efficiency. The results show that with the increase from
200 ppm to 3000 ppm of hydrogen sulfide concentration, H2S removal
(16)
efficiency evidently decreases from 98.3% to 70.5%. This phenomenon
may be explained by the following reason. Increasing hydrogen sulfide
concentration will increase the total amount of hydrogen sulfide
through reactor per unit time, and will reduce the relative molar ratio
of oxidizers (H2O2 and %OH) to hydrogen sulfide, which is unfavorable
to removal of hydrogen sulfide. As a result, under the tested experi-
mental conditions, with the increase of hydrogen sulfide concentration,
H2S removal efficiency decreases.
72
Y. Wang et al.
Fig. 5. Effects of hydrogen sulfide concentration on H2S removal efficiency.
Conditions: H2O2 concentration, 0.4 mol/L; Fe2+ concentration, 0.1 mol/L;
Temperature, 40 °C; Solution pH value, 3.52; Liquid-gas ratio, 3.
3.5. Effects of solution pH value on H2S removal efficiency
Fig. 6 shows the effects of solution pH value on H2S removal effi-
ciency. The results show that with the increase from 1.05 to 10.03 of
solution pH value, H2S removal efficiency increases from 75.1% to
95.3%, which shows that increasing solution pH value can enhance H2S
removal. As shown in the Eq. (5), the increase of OH− concentration
(solution pH value) can accelerate the hydrolysis reaction of H2S.
Producing more HS− will be more helpful for H2S removal since the
solubility of HS− in water is far higher than that of H2S.
3.6. Effects of liquid-gas ratio on H2S removal efficiency
Fig. 7 shows the effects of liquid-gas ratio on H2S removal effi-
ciency. The results indicate that with the increase from 2.0 to 10.0 of
liquid-gas ratio, H2S removal efficiency greatly increases from 36.9% to
100%. With the increase of liquid-gas ratio, the total amount of the
oxidants (H2O2 and %OH) through reactor per unit time will greatly
increase, which can increase the relative molar ratio of H2O2/%OH to
H2S, thereby being able to strengthen H2S removal. Furthermore, the
increase of liquid-gas ratio will raise the gas-liquid mass transfer rate by
strengthening mixture of gas-liquid two-phases [26,31], thereby also
being able to further strengthen H2S removal. As a result, an increase in
liquid-gas ratio results in a great increase in H2S removal efficiency.
Fig. 6. Effects of solution pH value on H2S removal efficiency. Conditions: H2O2
concentration, 0.4 mol/L, Fe2+ concentration, 0.1 mol/L, H2S concentration,
1000 ppm; Reaction temperature, 40 °C; Liquid-gas ratio, 3.
73
Fuel 239 (2019) 70–75
Fig. 7. Effects of liquid-gas ratio on H2S removal efficiency. Conditions: H2O2
concentration, 0.4 mol/L, Fe2+ concentration, 0.1 mol/L, H2S concentration,
1000 ppm; Reaction temperature, 40 °C; Solution pH value, 3.52.
However, high liquid-gas ratio will require higher power consumption,
thus an optimized liquid-gas ratio should be selected based on si-
multaneously considering efficiency and energy.
3.7. Detection of free radicals and reaction products
The key free radical %OH in solution was detected using electron
spin resonance (ESR) spectrometer, and the results are shown in
Fig. 8(a)–(c). As a comparison, two blank samples (H2O2 solution and
H2O/Fe2+) were also measured, and the results are shown in the
Fig. 8(a) and (b). The results in Fig. 8(a) and (b) indicate that there are
no free radical signals in the blank samples of H2O2 solution and H2O/
Fe2+. However, unlike the two blank samples, the results in Fig. 8(c)
indicate that clear free radical signals were successfully detected using
ESR spectrometer. These constants of hyperfine splitting such as
aN = 15.0 G and aH = 14.7 G maintain good consistency with the data
such as aN = 15.0 G and aH = 14.8 G from the other literatures
[32–35]. These constants of hyperfine splitting are the representative of
%OH that react with DMPO (DMPO-OH). In fact, a symmetrical four-line
peak is the typical spectrum shape of %OH measured by ESR spectro-
meter. The above results show that %OH has been produced in the re-
moval system. Additionally, the types and concentrations of products in
solution were also measured by ion chromatography and high effi-
ciency liquid chromatography, and the results are shown in Table 1.
The results show that a small amount of S is detected, and a large
number of SO42− is detected in reaction solutions. SO42− may be
produced by the above Eqs. (9), (11) and (12). S may be produced by
the above Eq. (13). The measuring results of the reaction products
maintained good consistency with the above chemical reaction pro-
cesses proposed and related discussions. For the recovery and utiliza-
tion of products, S is a kind of precipitate in water, and can be easily
separated by a simple precipitation or filtration. The remaining sulfuric
acid can be recovered by adding ammonia to produce ammonium sul-
fate (it is kind of widely used fertilizer). The liquid ammonium sulfate
can be converted into solid ammonium sulfate by evaporation and
crystallization (many industrial processes and boilers contain large
amounts of flue gas waste heat, which can provide a lot of free heat).
Therefore, the removal process can achieve zero waste liquid discharge.
3.8. Discussions on mechanism of H2S removal
Fig. 8(d) shows the comparative experiments of H2S removal effi-
ciency in different removal systems. The results indicate that H2O/Fe2+
can only achieve the 3.1% of H2S removal efficiency. H2O2 solution can
only achieve the 10.8% of H2S removal efficiency. As shown in Fig. 8(a)
Y. Wang et al. Fuel 239 (2019) 70–75

Fig. 8. ESR spectrums of %OH free radical adducts in liquid phase: (a) H2O/Fe2+, (b) H2O2 solution and (c) Fenton solution (Fe2+/H2O2); (d) Comparative ex-
periments of H2S removal efficiency in different systems. Conditions: H2O2 concentration, 0.4 mol/L, Fe2+ concentration, 0.1 mol/L, H2S concentration, 1000 ppm;
Solution temperature, 40 °C; Solution pH value, 3.52; Liquid-gas ratio, 3.

Table 1
Reaction products of hydrogen sulfide removal.
Running time (10 min) SO42− SO32− S Removal of gaseous H2S using Fenton reagent in a spraying tower
Measured concentration (mg/L) 23.84 0 0.31
Running time (20 min) SO42− SO32− S lution pH value can increase hydrogen sulfide removal efficiency; (2)
Measured concentration (mg/L) 51.97 0 0.69
and (b), there are no free radical signals in H2O2 solution and H2O/
Fe2+ system. The results show that the two part of hydrogen sulfides
removed are mainly removed by hydrolysis reaction of H2S and direct
oxidation of H2O2. When H2O2 and Fe2+ coexist in the reaction system
(i.e., Fenton system), H2S removal efficiency greatly increases to 83.5%.
Correspondingly, the results in Fig. 8(c) indicate that %OH is produced
in the Fenton system. The results show that this part of H2S is mainly
removed by oxidation of %OH. The determination results of the reaction
products such as SO42− and S further show that H2S is mainly removed
by oxidation reactions, which can further prove that the above-men-
tioned oxidation reactions. On the basis of H2S removal efficiencies in
different removal systems, it can be inferred that the removal of H2S by
oxidation of %OH plays a major role, and the removal of H2S by oxi-
dation of H2O2 and hydrolysis only play secondary roles in removal of
H2S. The specific removal process can be described the above Eqs.
(2)–(13). It is worth noting that the actual flue gas is very complicated
and often contains many kinds of pollutants such as SO2, NOx, Hg0,
CO2, VOCs, etc [36–40]. Therefore, the effects of these flue gas com-
ponents on H2S removal mechanism need to be further studied in depth
in the future works.
4. Conclusions
was studied systematically. The main conclusions of this article are as
follows: (1) the increase of liquid-gas ratio, Fe2+ concentration or so-
Increasing hydrogen sulfide concentration can reduce hydrogen sulfide
removal efficiency; (3) Increasing H2O2 concentration and reaction
temperature have double influence on hydrogen sulfide removal re-
moval efficiency; (4) Hydrogen sulfide removal by oxidation of %OH is
the main removal pathway. Hydrogen sulfide removal by oxidation of
H2O2 and hydrolysis reaction are the two secondary removal pathways;
(5) The main products of hydrogen sulfide removal are sulphuric acid
and elemental sulfur in solution. The new removal process can achieve
zero waste liquid discharge based on effective recovery and utilization
of reaction products.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of
China (Nos. U1710108; 51576094), Jiangsu ‘‘Six Personnel Peak”
Talent-Funded Projects (GDZB-014), China Postdoctoral Science
Foundation (2017M610306).
References
[1] Nassar IM, Noor El-Din MR, Morsi RE, El-Azeim AA, Hashem AI. Eco Friendly na-
nocomposite materials to scavenge hazard gas H2S through fixed-bed reactor in
petroleum a pplication. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;65:101–12.
[2] Jiang DH, Su LH, Ma L, Tang HD, Li XN. Cu–Zn–Al mixed metal oxides derived from

74
Y. Wang et al.
hydroxycarbonate precursors for H2S removal at low temperature. Appl Surf Sci
2010;256:3216–23.
[3] Yang C, Wang J, Fan HL, Ju SG, Mi J, Huo C. Contributions of tailored oxygen
vacancies in ZnO/Al2O3 composites to the enhanced ability for H2S removal at room
temperature. Fuel 2018;215:695–703.
[4] Huang L, Xia LY, Ge XX, Jing HY, Dong WB, Hou HQ. Removal of H2S from gas
stream using combined plasma photolysis technique at atmospheric pressure.
Chemosphere 2012;88:229–34.
[5] Bashkova S, Armstrong TR, Schwartz V. Selective Catalytic Oxidation of Hydrogen
Sulfide on Activated Carbons Impregnated with Sodium Hydroxide. Energy Fuels
2009;23:1674–82.
[6] Kataoka S, Lee E, Tejedor-Tejedor MI, Anderson MA. Photocatalytic degradation of
hydrogen sulfide and in situ FT-IR analysis of reaction products on surface of TiO2.
Appl Catal B 2005;61:159–63.
[7] Xu JH, Li CL, Liu P, He D, Wang JF, Zhang Q. Photolysis of low concentration H2S
under UV/VUV irradiation emitted from high frequency discharge electrodeless
lamps. Chemosphere 2014;109:202–7.
[8] Xie MY, Leung AK, Ng CWW. Mechanisms of hydrogen sulfide removal by ground
granulated blast furnace slag amended soil. Chemosphere 2017;175:425–30.
[9] Feng Y, Wen J, Hu YY, Wu B, Wu MM, Mi J. Evaluation of the cycling performance
of a sorbent for H2S removal and simulation of desulfurization-regeneration pro-
cesses. Chem Eng J 2017;326:1255–65.
[10] Sun Y, Zhang JP, Wend C, Zhang L. An enhanced approach for biochar preparation
using fluidized bed and its application for H2S removal. Chem Eng Process
2016;104:1–12.
[11] Wei LS, Zhang YF, Hu ZJ, Wang ZH. Kinetic modeling of hydrogen sulfide removal
by ozone oxidation. 2009;28: pp. 744–746.
[12] Chen YQ. Technical and Kinetic Study on Hydrogen Sulfide Removal by Chelated
Iron in Oxidation Process. Hangzhou: Zhejiang University of Technology; 2017. p.
2–28.
[13] Malhautier L, Gracian C, Roux JC, Fanlo JL, Cloirec PL. Biological treatment process
of air loaded with an ammonia and hydrogen sulfide mixture. Chemosphere
2003;50:145–53.
[14] Sharma V, Smith J, Millero J. Ferrate(VI) oxidation of hydrogen sulfide. Environ Sci
Technol 1997;31:2486–91.
[15] Zou HK, Sheng MP, Sun XF, Ding ZH, Sun BC. Removal of hydrogen sulfide from
coke oven gas by catalytic oxidative absorption in a rotating packed bed. Fuel
2017;204:47–53.
[16] Jalil AH, Rahmati-Rostami M, Ghotbi C, Hosseini-Jenab M, Ahmadi AN. Solubility
of H2S in Ionic Liquids [bmim][PF6], [bmim][BF4], and [bmim][Tf2N]. J Chem Eng
Data 2009;54:1844–9.
[17] Li XX, Wei HF. Progress of Iron ion wet oxidation processes for removing hydrogen
sulfide from gas. Environ Protect Chem Indus 2004;24:107–10.
[18] Babuponnusami A, Muthukumar K. A review on Fenton and improvements to the
Fenton process for wastewater treatment. J Environ Chem Eng 2014;2:557–72.
[19] Guo RT, Pan WG, Zhang XB, Ren JX, Wu J. Removal of NO by using Fenton reagent
solution in a lab-scale bubbling reactor. Fuel 2011;90:3295–8.
[20] Zhao Y, Wen XY, Guo TX, Zhou JH. Desulfurization and denitrogenation from flue
gas using Fenton reagent. Fuel Process Technol 2014;128:54–60.
[21] Lu D, Anthony EJ, Tan YW, Dureau R. Mercury removal from coalcombustion by
75
Fuel 239 (2019) 70–75
Fenton reactions–part A: bench-scale tests. Fuel 2007;86:2789–97.
[22] Liu YX, Zhou JF, Zhang YC, Pan JF, Wang Q, Zhang J. Removal of Hg0 and si-
multaneous removal of Hg0/SO2/NO in flue gas using two fenton-like reagents in a
spray reactor. Fuel 2015;145:180–8.
[23] Lin H, Wang YN, Wei W, Jiang YY. Treatment of H2S in mine water using Fenton
reagent. J China Coal Soc 2012;37:1760–4.
[24] Sun R, He JL, Xu B, Liu Q, Li L. Determination of elemental sulfur in biological
desulfurization solution by HPLC. Chem Eng Oil Gas 2015;6:101–4.
[25] Liu YX, Zhang J, Sheng CD, Zhang YC, Zhao L. Simultaneous removal of NO and SO2
from coal-fired flue gas by UV/H2O2 advanced oxidation process. Chem Eng J
2010;162:1006–11.
[26] Liu YX, Xu W, Pan JF, Wang Q. Oxidative removal of NO from flue gas using ul-
trasound, Mn2+/Fe2+ and heat coactivation of oxone in an ultrasonic bubble re-
actor. Chem Eng J 2017;326:1166–76.
[27] Karmann W, Meissner G, Henglein A. Pulsradiolyse des schwefelwasserstoffs in
waessriger Loesung. Z Naturforsch Teil B 1967;22:273–82.
[28] Liu XH, Yao XH, Zhang J, Liu HJ, Long C. Degradation of hydrogen sulfide using
non-thermal plasma and ozone catalytic oxidation. Environ Eng 2017;9:92–6.
[29] Zhao SQ, Wang L, Wang DH, Jin JS. Removal of H2S by O3-TiO2 photocatalytic
technology. Chin J Environ Eng 2015;11:5562–6.
[30] Liu YX, Liu ZY, Wang Y, Yin YS, Pan JF, Zhang J, et al. Simultaneous absorption of
SO2 and NO from flue gas using ultrasound/Fe2+/Heat coactivated persulfate
system. J Hazard Mater 2018;342:326–34.
[31] Liu YX, Wang Y, Wang Q, Pan JF, Zhang J. Simultaneous removal of NO and SO2
Using vacuum ultraviolet light (VUV)/heat/peroxymonosulfate (PMS).
Chemosphere 2018;190:431–41.
[32] Liu YX, Wang Y. Elemental mercury removal from flue gas using heat and Co2+/
Fe2+ coactivated oxone oxidation system. Chem Eng J 2018;348:464–75.
[33] Liu YX, Wang Q. Removal of elemental mercury from flue gas by thermally acti-
vated ammonium persulfate in a bubble column reactor. Environ Sci Technol
2014;20:12181–9.
[34] Liu YX, Wang Q, Pan JF. Novel process on simultaneous removal of nitric oxide and
sulfur dioxide using vacuum ultraviolet (VUV)-activated O2/H2O/H2O2 system in a
wet VUV-spraying reactor. Environ Sci Technol 2016;50:12966–75.
[35] Liu YX, Wang Y. Gaseous elemental mercury removal using combined metal ions
and heat activated peroxymonosulfate/ H2O2 solutions. AIChE J 2018. https://doi.
org/10.1002/aic.16224.
[36] Yang W, Liu YX, Wang Q, Pan JF. Removal of elemental mercury from flue gas using
wheat straw chars modified by Mn-Ce mixed oxides with ultrasonic-assisted im-
pregnation. Chem Eng J 2017;326:169–81.
[37] Yang W, Xu W, Liu ZY. Removal of elemental mercury from simulated flue gas using
sargassum chars modified by NH4Br reagent. Fuel 2018;214:196–206.
[38] Liu ZY, Yang W, Xu W. Removal of elemental mercury by Bio-chars derived from
sargassum and enteromorpha impregnated with potassium iodine. Chem Eng J
2018;339:468–78.
[39] Xu W, Hussain A, Liu YX. A review on modification methods of adsorbents for
elemental mercury from flue gas. Chem Eng J 2018;346:692–711.
[40] Yang W, Arshad H, Zhang J. Removal of elemental mercury from flue gas using red
mud impregnated by KBr and KI Reagent. Chem Eng J 2018;341:483–94.